Charity Without Choice: The Impact of Receiving Prosocial Gifts on Subsequent Donations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This study examines how receiving a prosocial gift, defined as a charitable donation made on behalf of another person, affects gift‐recipients' willingness to donate to the associated charity in the future. Four studies reveal that receiving a prosocial gift that is not explicitly requested decreases subsequent donations compared to when there is no gift exchange. This effect arises because an unrequested prosocial gift can threaten gift‐recipients' sense of freedom, eliciting a reactance response that lowers future donation intentions. Consistent with this explanation, we demonstrate that an intervention that restores gift‐recipients' threatened autonomy, by providing them with an opportunity to decide how the initial donation will be used, attenuates the impact of receiving an unrequested prosocial gift on future donations. Our work contributes to the emerging literature on prosocial gift‐giving and highlights the important role of individual freedom in motivating charitable giving. It also provides charity organizations with insights that can help increase repeat donations from prosocial gift‐recipients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".